A study by FTM Consulting claims that the market for nanotechnology products will grow to US$75 billion within the next decade. The study organizers apparently believe that a commercial market for nanowires and nanotubes will emerge within the next 10 years, although this belief is not shared by many scientists. The FTM study shares Intel's definition of nanotechnology as any technology using sub-100 nanometer components; it labels nanotubes and nanowires as “first generation” nanotechnology products, and describes molecular electronics, quantum computing, and self-assembly as being “second generation” nanotechnology that's over a decade away. Although many companies are now making batches of nanotubes, no company has developed a way to precisely control the chirality of the nanotubes. As a result, some nanotubes are metallic, and some are semiconducting. Moreover, it isn't clear how either nanotubes or nanowires could be integrated with current manufacturing techniques, nor are nanotubes and nanowires necessarily better than conventional CMOS technologies. Most semiconductor experts believe that pure CMOS will obviate the need for nanotubes or nanowires for at least the next decade.

USER COMMENTS 18 comment(s)

Other Markets(3:24pm EST Thu Apr 22 2004)I think it is a bit too hasty to declare CNT or nanowires the savior of interconnect RC delays. Far too much work still has to be done in making nanotubes a viable manufacturing option.

As was stated, chirality is a major issue, as is alignment of the nanotubes in the right direction. It is relatively easy to get vertical growth via PECVD, but lateral alignment is still an issue. Infineon has done some work with using SWNT as vias, but interconnects are a long way away. That 10^10 A/cm2 current density sure is attractive though…

I think a market will emerge for CNT, but for their mechanical properties, not electrical for early applications. CNT have an absurdly high Young's modulus (~1 TPa and potentially higher), as well as excellent tensile strength. It has been already shown that small percentages of CNT in ceramics or polymers can double most relevant mechanical properties.

I think the first big market will be in nanocomposite CNT materials. (NASA is all over this one) or potentially in energy storage. (Think fuel cells or EDL supercapacitors)- by Process Geek

RC delays(3:47pm EST Thu Apr 22 2004)depend on two components: resistance R and capacitance C. So far, there is no real reason to believe the resistance of nanowires will be a lot less than that of copper.

Number two: the capacitance. C depends of the area, the distance between two interconnects and the dielectricum between them. The current density might be higher. This could lead to smaller area so lower capacitance. This is thus the advantage. Not so! This directly increases resistance, so back to square one.

So, unless I do mis the point, no improvements can be made unless the resistance is a lot lower than that of copper.

Of course, with smaller wires the distances between them might increase, but only to a certain (moderate)extend. So it could be evolutionary, not revolutionary.- by Bee

Re: RC Delays(4:17pm EST Thu Apr 22 2004)As far as I understand CNT conductiviy properties, they are a ballistic conductor, thus for a single nanotube more or less independant of length, thus if one could grow a CNT to the right dimensions, an improvement in resistance could be obtained. Of course it hasn't really been done yet. - by Process Geek

RC delays(4:29pm EST Thu Apr 22 2004)depend on two components: resistance R and capacitance C. So far, there is no real reason to believe the resistance of nanowires will be a lot less than that of copper.

Number two: the capacitance. C depends of the area, the distance between two interconnects and the dielectricum between them. The current density might be higher. This could lead to smaller area so lower capacitance. This is thus the advantage. Not so! This directly increases resistance, so back to square one.

So, unless I do mis the point, no improvements can be made unless the resistance is a lot lower than that of copper.

Of course, with smaller wires the distances between them might increase, but only to a certain (moderate)extend. So it could be evolutionary, not revolutionary.- by Bee

Bonheads(4:52pm EST Thu Apr 22 2004)There was a study recently that was one of the first to test how much of a biohazzard nano-buckyball structures were and found that they were extremely toxic to fish and accumulated in thier neural tissue. They were expecting the nano structures to accumulate and sink to the bottom of the water tank. This study was the first on nano structures effects on living tissue. There really hasn't been many(any?) studies as to the effects that these unnatural structures have and I think there needs to be a lot more research before they go putting nano based structures in everything. And I realise that nano structures in a water tank is a different thing than make nano based wires but there should be some more thought put into what it's health effects will be. I mean the world doesn't need another asbestos. - by Fuzybaffy

When was the last time…(7:20pm EST Thu Apr 22 2004)…any ten-year-ahead prediction was remotely accurate? We can't even predict the weather ten DAYS ahead, and we have supercomputers working on that.- by Skeptic

Resistance(9:49pm EST Thu Apr 22 2004)While I admit most of this is theory, resistance should be less since the tube is actually a single molecule and not a collection. Electons should be able to travel through with little resistance. by the way were talking a couple of atoms wide. 1/10th the size of current litho technology.

By the way earthday, the tubes would be enclosed in a ceramic or plastic chip and not floating in water.

I don't know if this is true of nanotubes but many carbon compounds break down easily with ultraviolet light and or heat.- by RKO

grey goo(12:34am EST Fri Apr 23 2004)It's pretty silly:The idea that molecular devices, self-replicating nanobots really, will somehow either intentially or not be released upon the world to the peril of all of us earthlings! hahasuch crap!!!- by focus

Hence, there is still an obstacle to increasing interconnect density even with nanotubes. - by fc

Re: RKO(2:35am EST Fri Apr 23 2004)Nanotubes have been shown to be extremely sensitive to bursts of light in wavelength ranges within the visible spectrum as well as UV (and maybe even into IR, I can't remember). Funny story, the extreme susceptibility was discovered by an undergrad research assistant at RPI when he tried to take a picture of a clump of nanotubes, after which they spontaneously burst into flames and made a popping sound.

I don't know a whole lot about nanotubes and the various circumstances surrounding these phenomenon, chemistry is not my thing. But I figured I'd bring that up.

- by DrSengir

Covered.(2:52am EST Fri Apr 23 2004)This is one subject where I would really like to see a long comment from GoatGuy…

But until then, here's a good article on nanotech's not so optimistic possibilities.- by Apexified

I agree(6:17am EST Fri Apr 23 2004)we need goatie to explain this in a way ups mere mortals can properly understand - by D.ddd

nano health(11:25pm EST Fri Apr 23 2004)Fuzybaffy, you are right on target there, here is an article on the health effects of nano tech. there still needs to be more studies to be done. but it's a start.

- by Human Being

Re: RC delays of nanotube interconnects(2:01am EST Sat Apr 24 2004)Actually doesn't have to be infinitesimally thin for the argument to work, just fixed very small radius.

Capacitance is then proportional to 1/ln(d/r) where d is the spacing between lines and r is the radius of the nanotube). So as d decreases, its log decreases and so capacitance increases. - by fc

Nano wires and tubes(2:36am EST Sun Apr 25 2004)Why would you eve have a need for wires.My thoughts were on an archery arm protecter type strap on pc and having everything plug directly into the motherboard.

- by No Good

Nano Wires(6:20pm EST Fri Feb 11 2005)It's not the size of the wires that makes them neat, it's that at that size they are very well organized linearly, so electrons can scoot on through without running into things. - by glis